https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303246 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or disturbance of consolidation findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. Applying that principle, the court treated the admitted facts and consolidation records as showing that the holding had been resettled and recorded in the name of Adhin and his successors, so the respondents could not be denied sole tenure-holder status on the basis of the original ancestral entry alone. A non-joinder objection also failed because the omitted claimants derived through the same line and were not necessary parties after the original holder's rights had ceased. The writ petition was therefore maintainable. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303246 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or disturbance of consolidation findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. Applying that principle, the court treated the admitted facts and consolidation records as showing that the holding had been resettled and recorded in the name of Adhin and his successors, so the respondents could not be denied sole tenure-holder status on the basis of the original ancestral entry alone. A non-joinder objection also failed because the omitted claimants derived through the same line and were not necessary parties after the original holder's rights had ceased. The writ petition was therefore maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303246